Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

March_Latter t1_iztp8e2 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Recount flips Mass. House election to Democrat by 1 vote by TurretLauncher

That was an intelligent statement. Please tell me where and when Republican election fraud has occurred.

−8

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztudku wrote

There have been a small number of people arrested for voter fraud for the 2020 election, and even fewer prosecuted. Exact numbers are hard to get because of inconsistent reporting methods from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But fewer than 400 for all 2020 elections - including local, county, state, and federal - were forwarded by investigators to DAs for prosecution.

In many of these cases, who the fraudulent vote was for is not public information.

In several, they have been for Republicans, and in several, Democrats.

Most accountings identify more Republican fraudulent votes than Democratic. Both exist. Both are so rare as to only risk impacting an election with a tiny margin, such as this one.

7

March_Latter t1_iztx47y wrote

Sadly Journalism is dead...In twenty years we may know the answers but todays journalists work for a political party and might as well announce it on every broadcast. It does not help that no oversight has occurred in recent years either with that committee wasting all their time on political goose chases.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztyvlz wrote

I don’t see the relevance of your reflection on journalism.

7

March_Latter t1_iztzuzh wrote

The reason we are aware of outcomes of elections and investigations is journalists. The death of the local town journalist has left the work to the larger entities and they control the flow of news to their participants. I say participant because as you may have noticed a CNN viewer will never watch Fox and you can change those names as needed. So if CNN does not mention the event or changes its outcome to one that is positive to their party that becomes factual information to that participant. That happens daily if not hourly on big news days.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izu9ltr wrote

Oh this isn’t so. Studies have been done by non- journalists, and the data is public.

It matters not who reports it. The base information is available to be checked.

3

March_Latter t1_izua875 wrote

Really, let me help you with this one in a simple manner that will help you ascertain the truth. Tomorrow morning program your XM/Sirius to have CNN and FOX right next to each other. As you drive to work switch between them as often as is able and do so on the way home also. You could also do this with Bloomberg most of the day and MSNBC if you don't like CNN. At the end of the day tell me the differences in reporting. Not only factually but what light the news was discussed in. Whomever did the study you mention, flat out lied.

−2

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izumxlv wrote

Sir, I don’t get my news from listening to the radio or watching TV. I read, and I check all sources and raw data where available.

If it’s not, I take the information with a grain of salt.

I also read actual monographs on important topics by non-journalists.

Not everybody gets their information from popular media.

It’s remarkable to me that you think you are teaching me something after the unorganized and ill-thought-out positions you have posted here.

And the fact that you are saying as a fact that the author of a study you have never even seen, lied, is so obviously your will replacing your capacity to think that I’m amazed your will also overrode your ability to recognize even that.

3

March_Latter t1_izuwx16 wrote

Ill thought out you say, well your academic holiness let me bow down at your obvious intellect and belief that your news is unbiased. Being to mentally powerful yourself to do your own research must be difficult. If you believe the news you read is accurate nobody can help you. If you believe you are well informed, again nobody can help you. But stop masquerading as some sort of intellect. You are far from that.

−1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_izv86ny wrote

Sigh. I haven’t asserted that news sources are unbiased.

You seem not to have processed the meanings of the words in my reply at all.

2

[deleted] t1_iztqpdl wrote

[deleted]

6

March_Latter t1_iztrbz2 wrote

I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose. Otherwise all elections are absolute in their eyes and unable to be challenged regardless of any anomalies. This makes them two faced trash, not stupid two face trashed as democrats love to say to everyone...Ever think about how you look when you refer to someone as stupid? Myself, I don't think you are stupid. Just unable to self reflect.

−5

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_iztsrsr wrote

I don’t perceive that many Democrats are against recounts in close races. Can you cite that?

3

[deleted] t1_iztsxkb wrote

[deleted]

3

March_Latter t1_izttazf wrote

Me? I am surely not worried about my honesty or the outcomes Democrats have brought on themselves. Enjoy January!

−2

answeryboi t1_izvfsr5 wrote

>I am implying that democrats only argue against in election when they lose.

I believe Katie Hobbs -a Democrat and Arizona Secretary of State- is suing a republican county in AZ for not certifying their ballots even though them not certifying would result in 2-3 Democrats taking seats in AZ.

2

[deleted] t1_izttt7v wrote

[deleted]

0

March_Latter t1_iztvgp5 wrote

Three....You found three voters...Are you joking? Seriously the matter we are discussing involves 11 votes in a town and you found three voters in a state and claiming a win? Does anyone in your life take you seriously? Want to have fun? Lets go historical...1948 Lyndon Johnson election scandal. Current? Ozzie Myers. Both, although they show a pattern are not typically important are far more than three votes. Johnson is fun due to it being so blatant. Myers due to how widespread and long lasting it was. We can go on for a while...but three votes? Seriously fuck off.

1